BAYER CORP: Complaint Says Men's Vitamin Claims Untrue------------------------------------------------------Bayer falsely advertises that the selenium in its "One A Day Men's 50+ Advantage" and "One A Day Men's Health Formula" drugs can reduce the risk of prostate cancer, a class action claims in San Diego Federal Court, according to Courthouse News Service. A copy of the complaint in Johns v. Bayer Corp., Case No. 09-cv-1935 (S.D. Calif.), is available at:

No trial date has been set, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended July 24, 2009.

A voluntary mediation was scheduled for Aug. 31, 2009.

Bob Evans Farms, Inc. -- http://www.bobevans.com/-- is a full- service restaurant company that operates two restaurant concepts: Bob Evans Restaurants and Mimi's Cafes. The company is also a producer and distributor of pork sausage and complementary homestyle convenience food items. As of April 24, 2009, Bob Evans Restaurants (including Bob Evans Restaurants & General Stores) were located in 18 states, primarily in the Midwest, mid-Atlantic and Southeast, and Mimi's Cafes were located in 24 states, primarily in California and other western states.

On Sept. 10, 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint alleged that all Burger King restaurants in California leased by BKC and operated by franchisees violate accessibility requirements under federal and state law.

The plaintiffs seek injunction relief, statutory damages, attorney's fees and costs, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food hamburger restaurant. As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees. Of these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets. BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food items. The company generates revenues from three sources: retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to franchisees. The company operates in three reportable segments: the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.

BURGER KING: Faces Suits by National Franchisee Assoc. in Calif.----------------------------------------------------------------Burger King Holdings, Inc., faces two class action lawsuits filed by The National Franchisee Association, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

The company is a party to written agreements with The Coca-Cola Company and Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. pursuant to which these companies supply soft drinks to Burger King restaurants in the United States.

Under these agreements, the soft drink companies are required to pay certain amounts, known as "Restaurant Operating Funds", based on the volume of syrup purchased by the restaurants.

Historically, the soft drink companies have paid the entire amount of the Restaurant Operating Funds to the restaurants.

However, in April 2009, the company announced that beginning Jan. 1, 2010, a portion of these funds would be paid directly to it for use as specified in the soft drink agreements.

The National Franchisee Association, Inc. filed these two class action lawsuits on May 4, 2009, claiming to represent Burger King franchisees and seeking third party beneficiary status and declaratory relief.

The complaints allege that BKC and the soft drink companies did not have the right to amend the company's agreements to reduce the portion of Restaurant Operating Funds paid directly to the restaurants without the franchisees' consent.

Burger King Holdings, Inc. -- http://www.bk.com/-- is a fast food hamburger restaurant. As of June 30, 2009, the company owned or franchised a total of 11,925 restaurants in 73 countries and United States territories, of which 1,429 restaurants were company restaurants and 10,496 were owned by its franchisees. Of these restaurants, 7,233 or 61% were located in the United States and 4,692 or 39% were located in its international markets. BKH's restaurants feature flame-broiled hamburgers, chicken and other specialty sandwiches, french fries, soft drinks and other food items. The company generates revenues from three sources: retail sales at company restaurants; franchise revenues, and property income from restaurants that BKH leases or subleases to franchisees. The company operates in three reportable segments: the United States and Canada; Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia Pacific (EMEA/APAC), and Latin America.

CARDINAL HEALTH: Unable to Predict Recovery from Antitrust Suits----------------------------------------------------------------Cardinal Health, Inc. is unable at this time to estimate futurerecoveries, if any, it will receive as a result of certainantitrust class actions, according to its Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 .

The company recognized income of $0.2 million in fiscal 2008, and $28.5 million in fiscal 2007, resulting from settlement of class action antitrust claims alleging certain prescription drug manufacturers took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drug competition.

The company has not been a named plaintiff in any of these class actions, but has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those purchasers who purchase directly from these drug manufacturers).

The total recovery of such claims through June 30, 2009, was $151.8 million (net of attorney fees, payments due to other interested parties and expenses withheld).

Cardinal Health, Inc. -- http://www.cardinal.com/-- is a global company serving the healthcare industry. Cardinal Health'sdistribution businesses consolidate pharmaceuticals and medicalproducts from thousands of manufacturers into site-specificdeliveries to retail pharmacies, hospitals, physician offices,surgery centers and alternate care facilities. Cardinal Healthis a provider of specialized nuclear pharmaceuticals, deliveringmore than 13 million doses each year to hospitals and outpatientcare centers. Cardinal Health also manufactures medicationinfusion and dispensing products, respiratory equipment andsurgical instruments. On July 8, 2008, the Company announced areorganization and the consolidation of its businesses into twoprimary segments: the Healthcare Supply Chain Services andClinical and Medical Products segments. On May 12, 2008, theCompany acquired Enturia Inc. On Aug. 1, 2008, the Companycompleted the acquisition of Borschow Hospital & MedicalSupplies, Inc.

CHEYENE SIV: Fraud Suit Against Bank & Rating Agencies Survives---------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable Shira Scheindlin ruled last week that that Morgan Stanley and credit rating agencies Moody's Investors Service and Standard and Poor's must defend fraud charges in a class-action lawsuit that accuses them of inadequately describing the risks of subprime mortgages repackaged into investments in Cheyne Structured Investment Vehicle, which eventually collapsed. In a 68-page ruling, Judge Scheindlin declined the bank and rating agencies' request to dismiss fraud claims brought by Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank and King County in Washington State. Because some claims were dismissed, and claims against Bank of New York Mellon were dismissed, the will need to amend their complaint.

The New York Times DealBook says that Judge Scheindlin's ruling could affect other lawsuits brought by pension funds and other investors that seek to hold banks and credit raters responsible for hyping the value of complex debt to win fees and causing investor losses as the debt collapsed.

Reuters relates that the lawsuit accused the defendants of marketing a complex instrument, the Cheyne Structured Investment Vehicle, as a high-quality investment, but masked the risks. According to its complaint, the Abu Dhabi bank lost its entire investment in the Cheyne vehicle.

SIVs once held some $350 billion in assets, Reuters adds, but many collapsed.

In June 2008 the Honorable Robert Jones denied a motion to create a class representing the county's 4,000 foster children, saying there was not enough similarity between children in the lawsuit and the county's other foster children.

The Plaintiff appealed that decision. Clark v. Willden, No. 08-17227 (9th Cir.). The Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments last week in San Francisco, and will issue a written decision.

DAKTRONICS INC: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Pending in S.D.----------------------------------------------------------------Daktronics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated class action remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota.

The company and two of its executive officers are named as defendants in a consolidated class action filed in South Dakota in November 2008, on behalf of a class of investors who purchased Daktronics stock in the open market between Nov. 15, 2006 and April 5, 2007.

In an Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on April 13, 2009, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and misleading statements of material facts about its business and expected financial performance in the company's press releases, its filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and conference calls, thereby inflating the price of the company's common stock.

The Complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The Complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the alleged class in an unspecified amount, reasonable fees and costs of litigation, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

On June 5, 2009, the company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the company's motion to dismiss. Briefing on the motion is underway, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 1, 2009.

Daktronics, Inc. -- http://www.daktronics.com/-- is a supplier of electronic scoreboards, large electronic display systems and related marketing services, digital messaging solutions and software and services for sports venues, commercial and transportation applications. The Company operates through five segments: Commercial, Live Events, Schools and Theatres, Transportation and International.

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Settlement of "Smith" Lawsuit Pending Approval----------------------------------------------------------------The settlement of Margaret Smith's class action against Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries (OPCO) and Dollar Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, is pending approval, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

On Aug. 19, 2003, a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Ms. Smith, commenced an action against OPCO and the company's Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, on behalf of a purported class of Ontario borrowers who, Smith claims, were subjected to usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, alleges violations of a Canadian federal law proscribing usury, seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages, and seeks injunctive relief prohibiting further alleged usurious charges.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was granted on Jan. 5, 2007.

The trial of the common issues commenced on April 27, 2009, but was suspended when the parties reached a settlement.

During the fiscal quarter and fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, the company's Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, recorded a charge of US$57.4 million in relation to the pending Ontario settlement and for the potential settlement of certain of the similar class action proceedings pending in other Canadian provinces.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading diversified international financial services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are typically service sector individuals who require basic financial services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products, currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

On March 5, 2007, a former customer, H. Craig Day, commenced an action against OPCO, Money Mart and several of the company's franchisees in Canada, on behalf of a putative class of consumers who obtained short-term loans from Money Mart in Alberta.

The allegations, putative class and relief sought in the Day action are substantially the same as those in the action by Gareth Young in the same court but relate to a claim period that commences before and ends after the claim period in the Young action and excludes the claim period described in that action, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading diversified international financial services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are typically service sector individuals who require basic financial services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products, currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

On Jan. 29, 2003, a former customer, Kurt MacKinnon, commenced an action against Money Mart and 26 other Canadian lenders on behalf of a purported class of British Columbia residents who, MacKinnon claims were overcharged in payday-loan transactions.

The action, which is pending in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, alleges violations of laws proscribing usury and unconscionable trade practices and seeks restitution and damages, including punitive damages, in an unknown amount. Following initial denial, MacKinnon obtained an order permitting him to re-apply for class certification of the action against Money Mart alone, which was appealed. The Court of Appeal granted MacKinnon the right to apply to the original judge to have her amend her order denying class certification.

On June 14, 2006, the original judge granted the requested order and Money Mart's request for leave to appeal the order was dismissed. The certification motion in this action proceeded in conjunction with the certification motion in the Parsons action.

On April 15, 2005, the solicitor acting for MacKinnon commenced a proposed class action against Money Mart on behalf of another former customer, Louise Parsons.

Class certification of the consolidated MacKinnon and Parsons actions was granted on March 14, 2007.

In December 2007, the plaintiffs filed a motion to add OPCO as a defendant in this action and in March 2008, an order was granted adding OPCO as a defendant.

On July 25, 2008, the plaintiffs' motion to certify the action against OPCO was granted.

A summary trial is scheduled to commence in March 2010, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading diversified international financial services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are typically service sector individuals who require basic financial services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products, currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Unit/OPCO Face More Suits in Canadian States--------------------------------------------------------------Dollar Financial Corp.'s Canadian subsidiary, Money Mart, and Dollar Financial Group, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiaries (OPCO) continue to face purported class actions in other Canadian states.

Purported class actions have been commenced against Money Mart in Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

OPCO is named as a defendant in the actions commenced in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.

According to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, the claims in these actions are substantially similar to those in the action filed by a former customer in Ontario, Canada, Margaret Smith on behalf of a purported class of Ontario borrowers who were subjected to usurious charges in payday-loan transactions.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading diversified international financial services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are typically service sector individuals who require basic financial services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products, currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

OPCO filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the Bufil case is duplicative of the previous case and should be dismissed. Plaintiff filed her motion for class certification. OPCO's motion was granted and Bufil's motion was denied. Bufil appealed both rulings. In April 2008, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's ruling. OPCO filed a petition for review of that decision with the California Supreme Court, but in July 2008, the Court denied the petition.

The case was then returned to the trial court level and was assigned to the complex division. The trial court ordered briefing and a hearing on the issue of what discretion the trial court had on plaintiff's motion for class certification.

After the hearing, the trial court ruled that it had to follow the Court of Appeal's decision on class certification issues and ordered that the plaintiff's proposed class and sub-classes be certified.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading diversified international financial services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are typically service sector individuals who require basic financial services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products, currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Oct. 19 Trial Set for "Fitzgibbons" Status------------------------------------------------------------The class certification motion in a suit filed on behalf of a putative class of consumers and senior citizens against Dollar Financial Corp. is scheduled to be heard Oct. 19, 2009.

In September 2007, Jacqueline Fitzgibbons, who claims to be a former customer of a We The People store, commenced a lawsuit against the company and others in California Superior Court for Alameda County.

The suit alleges on behalf of a putative class of consumers and senior citizens that, from 2003 to 2007, We The People violated California law by advertising and selling living trusts and wills to certain California residents. Fitzgibbons claims, among other things, that the company and others improperly conspired to provide her with legal advice, misled her as to what, if any, legitimate service We The People provided in preparing documents, and misled her regarding the supervising attorneys' role in preparing documents.

The plaintiff is seeking class certification, prohibition of the Company's alleged unlawful business practices, and damages on behalf of the class in the form of disgorgement of all monies and profits obtained from unlawful business practices, general and special damages, attorneys' fees and costs of the suit, statutory and tremble damages pursuant to various California business, elder abuse, and consumer protection codes.

The complaint has been amended several times to add new parties and additional claims.

The Court granted, in part, the company's motion to dismiss certain claims alleged by the plaintiffs.

In January 2009, an individual named Robert Blau replaced Fitzgibbons as lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs have moved for class certification, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading diversified international financial services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are typically service sector individuals who require basic financial services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products, currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

DOLLAR FINANCIAL: Former WTP Customers' Suit Pending in Missouri----------------------------------------------------------------Dollar Financial Corp. faces a purported class action suit filed on behalf of customers of the company's We The People stores in Missouri.

In August 2008, a group of six former We The People customers commenced a lawsuit in St. Louis County, Missouri against the company, its subsidiary, We The People USA, Inc. and WTP franchisees offering services to Missouri consumers.

The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of a putative class of over 1,000 consumers that, from 2002 to the present, defendants violated Missouri law by engaging in: (i) an unauthorized law business, (ii) the unauthorized practice of law, and (iii) unlawful merchandising practices in the sale of its legal documents.

The plaintiffs are seeking class certification, prohibition of the defendants' unlawful business practices, and damages on behalf of the class in the form of disgorgement of all monies and profits obtained from unlawful business practices, attorney's fees, statutory and treble damages pursuant to various Missouri consumer protection codes.

In November 2008, the original six plaintiffs were dismissed by plaintiffs' counsel and the initial complaint was also later dismissed.

In January 2009, former WTP customers, Philip Jones and Carol Martin, on behalf of a punitive class of Missouri customers, filed a lawsuit in St. Louis County against the Company and its subsidiary, We The People USA, Inc., and a St. Louis franchisee entity alleging claims similar to the initial August 2008 suit. These new plaintiffs also seek class certification, according to the company's Sept. 3, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Dollar Financial Corp. -- http://www.dfg.com/-- is a leading diversified international financial services company serving unbanked and under-banked consumers. Its customers are typically service sector individuals who require basic financial services but, for reasons of convenience and accessibility, purchase some or all of their financial services from the Company rather than from banks and other financial institutions. To meet the needs of these customers, the Company provides a range of consumer financial products and services primarily consisting of check cashing, short-term consumer loans, pawn lending, Western Union money order and money transfer products, currency exchange, reloadable VISA(R) and MasterCard(R) branded debit cards, electronic tax filing, and bill payment services.

In November 2006, Apollo Group, Inc. and certain of its current and former directors and officers, including Mr. Nelson, were named as defendants in the class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The plaintiffs asserted violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty and civil conspiracy.

In March 2009, the District Court dismissed the state law claims, but denied motions to dismiss the remaining claims against certain of the defendants, including Mr. Nelson.

Discovery has not yet begun in this case, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Education Management LLC -- http://www.edmc.com/-- is a provider of post-secondary education in North America. The company offers academic programs to its students through campus-based and online instruction, or through a combination of both. Its educational institutions offer students the opportunity to earn undergraduate and graduate degrees and certain specialized non-degree diplomas in a range of disciplines, including design, media arts, health sciences, psychology and behavioral sciences, culinary, fashion, business, education, legal and information technology. Each of its schools located in the United States is recognized by an accreditation agency and by the U.S. Department of Education, enabling students to access federal student loans, grants and other forms of public and private financial aid.

Following the company's disclosure on April 9, 2007, that its Audit Committee was conducting an Internal Investigation into certain revenue recognition matters, a series of putative class action lawsuits was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of company stock from Oct. 27, 2005, through April 9, 2007, and named as defendants the company and certain of its present and former officers and directors.

The complaints alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of alleged accounting irregularities at the company's Japan subsidiary.

On July 22, 2007, the court consolidated all of the actions under the caption In re International Rectifier Corporation Securities Litigation (formerly Edward R. Koller v. International Rectifier Corporation, et., al.) , No. CV 07-02544-JFW (VBKx) (C.D. Cal.), and appointed the Massachusetts Laborers' Pension Fund and the General Retirement System of the City of Detroit as co-lead plaintiffs.

On Jan. 14, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which named as defendants several of the Company's former officers, but did not name any of its past or present directors except Eric Lidow and Alex Lidow.

On May 23, 2008, the Court issued an order granting defendants' motions to dismiss, without prejudice, on the ground that Lead Plaintiffs failed to plead detailed facts sufficient to give rise to a strong inference of defendants' scienter.

On Oct. 17, 2008, Lead Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action complaint alleging causes of action for securities fraud and control person liability against the Company, Alex Lidow, Michael P. McGee, and Robert Grant, and, for control person liability only, against Eric Lidow and purporting to bring suit on behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased company securities between July 31, 2003, and Feb. 11, 2008.

On Nov. 10, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the SACC on the grounds that plaintiffs had failed to plead with particularity facts raising a strong inference that the individuals who spoke on the company's behalf during the putative class period knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that the company's financial statements were inaccurate.

On Dec. 31, 2008, the District Court issued an order granting the company's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claim for control person liability and granting, in its entirety, defendant Robert Grant's motion to dismiss. These dismissals were with prejudice. The District Court denied the company's motion to dismiss the securities fraud count and denied in their entirety motions to dismiss brought by defendants Alex Lidow, McGee, and Eric Lidow.

On Jan. 7, 2009, the Court issued orders referring the matter for mediation, setting Sept. 1, 2009, as the last day for a settlement conference, Oct. 26, 2009, as the discovery cutoff, and Jan. 12, 2010, as the first day of trial.

On March 17, 2009 plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of the putative class, which was set for hearing on Aug. 10, 2009.

On July 29, 2009, an agreement in principle was reached to settle the action. The proposed settlement is subject to negotiation and execution of a formal settlement agreement and is dependent upon final approval by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The proposed settlement would resolve all class members' claims against the company and certain of its former officers and directors. It would provide for a payment to the plaintiffs of $90 million, of which $45.0 million is to be paid by the company's insurance carriers and $45.0 million by the company. Class members will receive notice and have a right to object to and/or opt out of the settlement. Final consummation of the settlement will occur upon the entry of final judgment by the court approving the settlement as fair to all class members. The timing of approval process is dependent upon the court's calendar. However, the company expects that the approval process will be completed before the end of the calendar year 2009.

The parties have agreed to suspend all discovery and other litigation activity in this case while the settlement papers are being prepared.

The company has accrued a reserve of $45.0 million in fiscal year 2009 for this settlement, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2009.

International Rectifier Corp. (NYSE: IRF) -- http://www.irf.com/-- is a world leader in power management technology. IR's analog, digital, and mixed signal ICs, and other advanced power management products, enable high performance computing and save energy in a wide variety of business and consumer applications. Leading manufacturers of computers, energy efficient appliances, lighting, automobiles, satellites, aircraft, and defense systems rely on IR's power management solutions to power their next generation products.

On Aug. 15, 2008, after the company's disclosure that Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. had made an unsolicited, non-binding proposal to acquire all outstanding shares of the company, a purported class action complaint captioned Hui Zhao v. International Rectifier Corporation , No. BC396461, was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The complaint named as defendants the Company and all current directors and alleged that the Vishay proposal was unfair and that acceptance of the offer would constitute a breach of fiduciary duty by the board.

Five other substantively identical complaints seeking the same relief were filed in the same court and, on Oct. 3, 2008, were consolidated under the caption of the lead case.

On Oct. 28, 2008, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint purporting to allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of a putative class of investors based on the theory that the board breached its fiduciary duty by rejecting the Vishay proposal.

Also pending before the same court is a related case captioned City of Sterling Heights Police Fire Retirement System v. Dahl, No. BC397326. The City of Sterling complaint, filed Aug. 29, 2008, alleges substantively identical causes of action but is brought nominally on the Company's behalf as a derivative action.

Briefing on both complaints was coordinated pursuant to a scheduling order issued by the Court on Oct. 15, 2008.

On Nov. 21, 2008, defendants demurred to the complaints on the grounds that plaintiffs in both cases have failed to plead a claim and lack standing to bring the claims on behalf of the company. In support of the demurrer in Zhao, defendants further assert that plaintiffs' claims are derivative, not direct, and that because plaintiffs already have filed with the Court pleadings in which they allege that the Vishay offer was undervalued, they are now estopped from alleging the opposite. Defendants also brought a motion pursuant to California Corporations Code 800 requiring plaintiff City of Sterling to post a bond before continuing with litigation on the Company's behalf.

On Dec. 19, 2008, plaintiffs in both actions filed oppositions to defendants' demurrers. In its opposition, plaintiff City of Sterling noted that it intended to withdraw its complaint and file an amended complaint after the hearing on the Company's demurrers and motion for bond.

On April 16, 2009, the Court sustained defendants' demurrer to the consolidated amended complaint in Zhao, and ordered the Zhao action to be dismissed with prejudice. On the same date, the Court granted defendants' motion pursuant to California Corporations Code 800 requiring plaintiff City of Sterling to post a bond in the amount of $50,000 no later than June 2, 2009, or face dismissal of its action.

On May 26, 2009, the Court entered a final judgment in Zhao dismissing the action with prejudice. On June 24, 2009, plaintiffs in Zhao filed a notice of appeal from the final judgment of dismissal.

On July 20, 2009, plaintiff in City of Sterling and the company entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding settlement of the City of Sterling action, pursuant to which, inter alia, the derivative claims asserted in the action will be dismissed with prejudice and the company will pay to plaintiffs' counsel $60,000 in attorneys' fees, according to the company's Aug. 27, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 28, 2009.

International Rectifier Corp. (NYSE: IRF) -- http://www.irf.com/-- is a world leader in power management technology. IR's analog, digital, and mixed signal ICs, and other advanced power management products, enable high performance computing and save energy in a wide variety of business and consumer applications. Leading manufacturers of computers, energy efficient appliances, lighting, automobiles, satellites, aircraft, and defense systems rely on IR's power management solutions to power their next generation products.

ONLINE TRAVEL: Nassau County Requests Class Certification---------------------------------------------------------Michael H. Samuels at Long Island Business News reports that a federal district court is weighing whether New York counties can band together and file a class action suit against online hotel retailers to recoup what they consider to be lost tax revenue.

At issue, Mr. Samuels explains, is more than $5 million that county governments throughout the state claim Web sites such as Hotels.com, Hotwire.com, Cheaptickets.com, Expedia.com, Orbitz.com and Travelocity.com owe in back taxes.

The case is County of Nassau, New York v. Hotels.com, LP, et al., Case No. 06-cv-_____ (E.D.N.Y.).

The online travel services say they only need to collect and remit taxes based on the wholesales prices they pay for rooms in the county, not the retail rate that the sites charge to travelers. The counties want to receive sales taxes on the retail price the traveler pays the online service.

Peter Clines, chief of the Bureau of Affirmative Litigation in the Nassau County attorney's office, tells Mr. Samuels that the difference between the two rates has led to millions in losses for the 41 counties and cities in New York with a hotel occupancy tax.

Interactive Travel Services Association, a lobbying group for online travel retailers, says any increase would hurt hotel occupants because the Web sites would pass the fees on to customers. The group, which has fought similar lawsuits in other markets, also said a change in the way taxes are levied would lead to a decline in tourism.

Even if the class action suit is not certified, Rodger Citron, an assistant law professor at Touro Law School in Central Islip, told Mr. Samuels, the county may be able to file another suit under a different federal law by dropping the other municipalities from their complaint. "By no means is the lawsuit over for Nassau County," Prof. Citron said.

See "PRICELINE.COM INC: Still Faces Suits Over Hotel Occupancy Taxes" in the Tues., May 13, 2009, edition of the Class Action Reporter for additional information about other lawsuits by other municipalities against the online travel services.

PARK PLAZA: Class Action Charges Diner with Underpaying Workers---------------------------------------------------------------Samuel Newhouse and Ryan Thompson at the Brooklyn Daily Eagle report that George Haritopoulos, a former waiter at Park Plaza Restaurant & Bakery, has filed a class-action lawsuit against the local diner. Mr. Haritopoulos claims that he and other workers are owed money for unpaid wages, and estimates that damages could reach $5 million.

"Park Plaza Restaurant has been an institution in Brooklyn Heights for over twenty-five years," the complaint states. "The restaurant has received press in the New York Times for feeding New York's criminal defendants and infamous mobsters, such as Vincent 'The Chin' Gigante and Peter, Gene and John Gotti."

"Park Plaza Restaurant's success, however, comes at the expense of their hourly service workers," the complaint continues.

Mr. Haritopoulos claims that he and fellow employees were paid only $0.74 to $1.41 per hour while they worked -- far less than required by minimum wage laws.

PETSMART INC: "Sorenson" Settlement Got Final Approval in Feb.--------------------------------------------------------------The settlement of the putative class action suit captioned Sorenson v. PetSmart was granted final approval in February 2009, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2009.

On Oct. 3, 2006, the lawsuit was filed against the company in California State Court on behalf of putative classes of current and former California employees.

The plaintiff, a former dog groomer, alleged that she and other non-exempt employees failed to receive their meal and rest breaks as required by law.

In November 2006, the company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle these matters. Final approval of the settlement was granted by the court on Feb. 19, 2009, and final settlement payments have been disbursed, effectively resolving the case.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime needs of pets. The company offers a line of products for all the life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp. It also offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as well operates a pet community site, pets.com.

PETSMART INC: "Enabnit" Settlement Got Final Approval in April--------------------------------------------------------------Final approval of the settlement of the putative class action lawsuit, Enabnit v. PetSmart, was granted by the California State Court on April 22, 2009.

On Oct. 12, 2006, the lawsuit was filed against the company in California State Court on behalf of putative classes of current and former California employees.

The plaintiff alleged meal and rest period violations and that employee paychecks were not compliant with the California Labor Code.

In November 2006, the company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

The parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. Final settlement payments have been disbursed, effectively resolving the case, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2009.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime needs of pets. The company offers a line of products for all the life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp. It also offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as well operates a pet community site, pets.com.

PETSMART INC: Suit by Former Pet Groomers Ongoing in California---------------------------------------------------------------A putative class action, Langton v. PetSmart, is ongoing in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, according to PetSmart, Inc.'s Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2009.

On Jan. 12, 2009, a former groomer filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former groomers in California State Court.

The plaintiff alleges that she and other non-exempt groomers did not receive payment for all hours worked, did not receive meal and rest breaks, did not receive all wages due upon termination, did not receive accurate wage statements as required by law, and were not provided with necessary tools and equipment.

On Feb. 17, 2009, the company removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime needs of pets. The company offers a line of products for all the life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp. It also offers pet products through an e-commerce site, PetSmart.com, as well operates a pet community site, pets.com.

PETSMART INC: Appeals of N.J. Pet Food Settlement Pending---------------------------------------------------------Appeals with respect to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey's approval of the settlement of a consolidated pet food class action litigation against PetSmart, Inc., are pending.

The company is a party to several lawsuits arising from the pet food recalls announced by several manufacturers beginning in March 2007.

The named plaintiffs sued the major pet food manufacturers and retailers claiming that their pets suffered injury and/or death as a result of consuming allegedly contaminated pet food and pet snack products.

By order dated June 28, 2007, six cases were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with other pet food class actions under the federal rules for multi-district litigation (In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation, Civil No. 07-2867). The Canadian cases were not consolidated.

On May 21, 2008, the parties to the U.S. lawsuits comprising the In re: Pet Food Product Liability Litigation and the Canadian cases jointly submitted a comprehensive settlement arrangement for court approval. Preliminary court approval was received from the U.S. District Court on May 3, 2008, and from all of the Canadian courts as of July 8, 2008. On Oct. 14, 2008, the U.S. District Court approved the settlement, and the Canadian courts gave final approval on Nov. 3, 2008.

Two different groups of objectors filed notices of appeal with respect to the U.S. District Court's approval of the U.S. settlement, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Aug. 2, 2009.

PetSmart, Inc. -- http://www.petsmart.com/-- is a specialty provider of products, services and solutions for the lifetime needs of pets. The company offers a line of products for all the life stages of pets, and offers various pet services, including professional grooming, training, boarding and day camp. It also offers pet products through an e-commerce site at http://PetSmart.com/as well operates a pet community site at http://pets.com/

Three putative shareholder class actions were separately filed by individual shareholders in April 2009, in Santa Clara County Superior Court naming Sun and certain of the company's officers and directors, as well as Oracle Corporation, as defendants.

The complaints, which are similar, seek to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Sun by Oracle Corporation and allege claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants and for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against the corporate defendants.

The complaints generally allege that the consideration offered in the proposed transaction is unfair and inadequate.

On June 16, 2009, the three shareholder actions were consolidated into a single action.

On July 2, 2009, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholders' meeting scheduled for July 16, 2009.

On July 14, 2009, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

On Aug. 7, 2009, Defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated complaint, and on Aug. 24, 2009, Plaintiff's filed a motion to award attorneys fees incurred in the case.

There has been no further activity in this matter as of Aug. 28, 2009, the date of the company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

TUESDAY MORNING: Appeal of Decertification Ruling Set for Trial---------------------------------------------------------------Oral argument on the plaintiffs' appeal from the decertification of the class of store managers in complaints filed against Tuesday Morning Corporation has been scheduled.

During 2001 and 2002, the company was named as a defendant in three complaints filed in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs sought to certify a statewide class made up of some of the company's current and former employees, which they claim are owed compensation for overtime wages, penalties and interest.

The plaintiffs also sought attorney's fees and costs.

In October 2003, the company entered into a settlement agreement with a sub-class of these plaintiffs consisting of managers-in-training and management trainees, which was paid in November 2005.

A store manager class was certified.

However, in August 2008, the company's motion for de-certification of the class of store managers was granted, thereby dismissing their class action claim. The plaintiffs have appealed this ruling and oral argument has been scheduled, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

Tuesday Morning Corporation -- http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/-- is a closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares, gifts and related items in the United States. The company's merchandise primarily consists of lamps, rugs, kitchen accessories, small electronics, gourmet housewares, linens, luggage, bedroom and bathroom accessories, toys, stationary and silk plants, as well as crystal, collectibles and silver serving pieces.

In December 2008, the lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California in and for the County of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs allege claims covering meal and rest period violations.

This case has been stayed pending the outcome of another case, according to the company's Aug. 28, 2009, Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009.

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Judge Calls Four Greedy Lawyers "Remoras"-------------------------------------------------------------The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum denied a request by four lawyers for a $225,000 fee award for their role in representing two shareholders who objected to class counsel's fees in In re UnitedHealth Group Incorporated PSLRA Litigation, Case No. 06-cv-1691 (D. Minn.).

"The remoras are loose again," Judge Rosenbaum writes, saying the objectors and their lawyers "have contributed nothing" and "[t]heir suggestion is laughable."

"Wow," is the response of the folks at The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog Newsletter, who pulled out their dictionary to learn that remoras are suckerfish that attaches themselves to bigger sea-dwellers, like sharks, in order to gain transportation and protection.

A copy of the four lawyers' Motion for an Award of Fees is available at http://is.gd/2UJXKand a copy of Judge Rosenbaum's Order is available at http://is.gd/2UK2Qcourtesy of The Wall Street Journal.

IMMERSION CORP: Glancy Bindow Files Suit in N.D. Calif. -------------------------------------------------------Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased the securities of Immersion Corporation (Nasdaq:IMMR) between May 3, 2007, and June 30, 2009, inclusive.

A copy of the Complaint is available from the court or from Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP. Contact the Firm by phone to discuss this action or to obtain a copy of the Complaint at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224, by email at info@glancylaw.com, or visit the Firm's website at http://www.glancylaw.com/

The Complaint charges Immersion and certain of the Company's current and former executive o7fficers with violations of federal securities laws. Immersion Corp. develops, manufactures, licenses and supports a range of hardware and software technologies, and products that enhance digital devices with touch interaction. The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that their public statements concerning Immersion's financial performance were materially false and misleading. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or indicate: (1) that the Company overstated its income tax expense; (2) that the Company improperly recognized revenue; (3) that, as a result, the Company's revenue, accounts receivable and financial results were overstated during the Class Period; (4) that the Company's financial results were not prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (6) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

Then, on July 1, 2009, Immersion shocked investors when it announced that the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Immersion was conducting an internal investigation into certain previous revenue transactions in its Medical line of business. The Company further disclosed that as a result of this investigation, Immersion's previously reported financial information could be materially impacted. As a result of this news, shares of Immersion declined $1.14 per share, more than 23%, to close on July 1, 2009, at $3.80 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move the Court, no later than November 2, 2009, to serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal requirements. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this Notice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Michael Goldberg, Esquire, or Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire, of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at (310) 201-9150 or Toll Free at (888) 773-9224 or by e-mail to info@glancylaw.com.

IMMERSION CORP: Braham Fruchter Files Suit in N.D. Calif. ---------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of Immersion Corporation (NASDAQ: IMMR) common stock between May 3, 2007, and June 30, 2009. The complaint charges Immersion and certain of its officers and directors with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's transactions in its Medical line of business.

According to the complaint, defendants failed to disclose that Immersion's revenue recognition practices in its Medical line of business were improper. This caused Immersion's stock to be artificially inflated during the Class Period, with prices reaching a high of $20.50 per share on July 13, 2007. On July 1, 2009, the Company issued a press release announcing that the Audit Committee of the Company's Board was conducting an internal investigation into certain previous revenue transactions in its Medical line of business, which could "raise issues with respect to its previously-reported financial information, which could be material." On this news, Immersion's stock dropped to close at $3.80 per share that day.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Immersion common stock during the Class Period. The Plaintiff is represented by Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, which has extensive experience in securities class action cases, and the firm has been ranked among the leading class action law firms in terms of recoveries achieved by a survey of class action law firms conducted by Institutional Shareholder Services. If you would like to discuss this action or if you have any questions concerning this notice or your rights as a potential class member or lead plaintiff, you may contact:

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than November 2, 2009. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class.

PROSHARES ULTRA: Gilman and Pastor Files Suit in D. Md. -------------------------------------------------------Gilman and Pastor LLP filed a class action lawsuit on September 2, 2009, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares in the UltraShort MSCI Emerging Markets ProShares fund (NYSE: EEV), an exchange-traded fund offered by ProShares Trust, pursuant or traceable to ProShares' false and misleading Registration Statement, Prospectuses, and Statements of Additional Information issued in connection with the EEV Fund's shares. The Class is seeking recovery for investors under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

If you bought shares in the EEV Fund pursuant to the Registration Statement and would like to consider serving as lead plaintiff or have any questions about the lawsuit, please contact Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq. of Gilman and Pastor, at (888) 252-0048, or via email at kgilman@gilmanpastor.com. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the United States District Court for the District of Maryland no later than November 4, 2009. A Lead Plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent class members. You do not need to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff to share in any class recovery in this action. If you are a class member and there is a recovery for the class, you can share in that recovery as an absent class member. You may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

The complaint names ProShares; ProShare Advisors LLC, SEI Investments Distribution Co., Michael L. Sapir, Louis M. Mayberg, Russell S. Reynolds, III, Michael Wachs, and Simon D. Collier, as defendants. ProShares sells its Ultra and UltraShort ETFs as "simple" directional plays. As marketed by ProShares, Ultra ETFs are designed to go up when markets go up; UltraShort ETFs are designed to go up when markets go down. The EEV Fund is one of ProShares' UltraShort ETFs. The EEV Fund seeks investment results that correspond to twice the inverse (-200%) daily performance of the MSCI Emerging Markets Index ("MSCI"), which measures the performance of the emerging markets index. Accordingly, the EEV Fund is supposed to deliver double the inverse return of the MSCI Index, which fell approximately 52 percent from January 2, 2008 through December 17, 2008, ostensibly creating a profit for investors who anticipated a decline in the performance of the emerging markets. In other words, the EEV Fund should have appreciated by 104 percent during this period. However, the EEV Fund actually fell approximately 30 percent (a 134 percent shortfall) during this period.

The complaint alleges the Defendants violated the Securities Act by failing to disclose that the EEV Fund is altogether defective as a securities product and as directional investment play. Defendants failed to disclose the following risks in the Registration Statement: (1) inverse correlation between the EEV Fund and the MSCI over time would only happen in the rarest of circumstances, and inadvertently if at all; (2) the extent to which performance of the EEV Fund would inevitably diverge from the performance of the MSCI -- i.e., the probability, if not certainty, of spectacular tracking error; (3) the severe consequences of high market volatility on the EEV Fund's investment objective and performance; (4) the severe consequences of inherent path dependency in periods of high market volatility on the EEV Fund's performance; (5) the role the EEV Fund plays in increasing market volatility, particularly in the last hour of trading; (6) the consequences of the EEV Fund's daily hedge adjustment always going in the same direction as the movement of the underlying index, notwithstanding that it is an inverse leveraged ETF; (7) the EEV Fund causes dislocations in the stock market; (8) the EEV Fund offers a seemingly straightforward way to obtain desired exposure, but such exposure is not attainable through the EEV Fund.

The law firm Gilman and Pastor LLP. Gilman and Pastor LLP is one of the country's premier national law firms that represent institutional and individual investors in class action, complex securities and corporate governance litigation. The firm has been a champion of investor rights for over 30 years and has been recognized for its reputation for excellence by the courts.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.